zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Seven Sages (Ocarina of Time)
Eh Seven sages coloring Should we have it go as follows? The sage of water rather than The sage of water We did this on the goddesses page I believe.--'⽩㤖㒾 - 㑻' 17:52, December 5, 2009 (UTC), 您的饱经世故者. Triforce does it there. --'⽩㤖㒾 - 㑻' 18:21, December 5, 2009 (UTC), 您的饱经世故者. Dont know if itle be worth the trouble but If so then it would be The sage of light The sage of forest The Sage of fire The sage of water The sage of shadow The sage of Spirit As for zelda, ide just leave the font as black Leekduck (vote for me, and you will get a hot dog) (talk) 18:36, December 5, 2009 (UTC) Favorite Sage Does anyone prefer a specific Sage over the others; which is your favorite Sage? Sam samurai :Hey Sam samurai, welcome to the wiki! What we generally do around here is if you ask one of these type of questions, it should be on a forum, namely the Watercooler. Please try to do that more often!'-- C2' / 03:07, December 14, 2009 (UTC) Oh, sorry. Thanks for pointing that out. Sam samurai Immortality? Sage "Descendants" The seven sages from OoT have successors, such as those seen in Wind Waker and A Link to the Past (ok, they used to be called "wise men", but that was in an old US mistranslation of the original Japenese's "seven sages", and it was revised to call them "seven sages" in more recent releases of ALttP). Some later sages are referred to as "descendants", implying blood relatives. However, Sages like Saria and Fado are Kokiri, who are children for their entire life and should never be able to reproduce at all. As both of their power is known to be passed on, it's clear that Sage status/powers can be passed to a spiritual successor who is not biologically related to the previous sage. As far as I've seen, that's never mentioned on the wiki. It is significant though, as it explains how the ALttP/FSA maidens can be the successors of the original sages despite their species differences, and refutes the main point of evidence for the theory that the Rito are descended from Zoras (Medli could simply be Laruto's successor, rather than biological descendant. It in fact, the game says exactly that in the original Japanese, with the US's blood relative stuff being a bad translation.). I expect there are other instances in which this point is significant. I wanted to bring this up and see if people agreed and thought it worthy of explanation in main space.--Fierce Deku (talk) 07:01, December 2, 2010 (UTC) :If it does go on the page it should most defiantly be put under the theories section. I have no problem with this on the page if it is under that section. If it wasn't in the theories section I would not agree with having it on the page since it is just a theory. Nothing more nothing less. This brings up some good and interesting points but they can't be proven fact. --Birdman5589 (talk) 07:09, December 2, 2010 (UTC) ::I don't see how it's an unproven theory: :::Fado is a Sage>>>Fado is also a Kokiri>>>Kokiri are children their whole lives>>>Children can't reproduce (and are unlikely to evolve into plants even if they did)>>>Fado therefore can't reproduce>>>Makar inherits Fados sage power anyway>>>Sage power can therefore be passed down to beings who are not biologically descended from the sage who is transferring said power. ::Where is there a break in that logic? That doesn't even assume anyone is a successor to a sage from a different game. It's all spelled out in Wind Waker alone. I just don't see what you mean about it being theory.--Fierce Deku (talk) 07:24, December 2, 2010 (UTC) :::While I the logic works and makes perfect sense, let me quote what the Theory template says: "Theory warning: This section contains theoretical information based on the viewpoints or research of one or several other users. It has not been officially verified by Nintendo and its factual accuracy is disputed." This is simply information based on research in my opinion and not verified by Nintendo. Do I think that this theory is highly plausible? Yes. That doesn't mean I think it should be taken as fact. --Birdman5589 (talk) 15:16, December 2, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yes, it is research, and research can produce confirmed facts. Everything we say on this wiki can be considered the result of research. For example, I saw a while back on the MM section for light arrows that only 3 specific kinds of enemies would drop a purple rupee when defeated by a light arrow. I decided to do some research. I got into the game, and shot various enemies with light arrows, and several types not on the list dropped a purple rupee. Thus I can conclude that the list I'd seen was inaccurate, so I edited it. Nintendo did not "verify" this anywhere. They do not have to verify that things shown in their games actually did happen in their games. I don't understand why this sage thing wouldn't be considered fact. Maybe we just have two different opinions on how obvious something has to be to be considered a fact for wiki pruposes.--Fierce Deku (talk) 04:05, December 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::That's a bit more of an irrelevant matter, based on that's small gameplay element (a lot more trivial, mind you) while this is a large plot component. Nintendo would have to verify this specific topic as it can merely go both ways at the current moment. However, the Rito-Zora theory, along with Korok-Kokiri theory, are in fact, not theories any more. Based on an article awhile back (can't remember when), Eiji Aonuma, lead director of The Wind Waker, in case you've forgotten, confirmed both those theories. "They appear different, but they have inherited their blood." That's either some super creepy thing, or its saying that there is a blood relation and, with that, it makes it just as plausible that each sage could be a blood relative, and therefore a descendant. - McGillivray227 05:08, December 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::There's a difference between your Light Arrow example and the sage thing. The Light Arrow thing can be verified by playing the game and observing the results directly, whereas the sage thing cannot (id est, you cannot play any Zelda game and watch a cutscene of Fado passing on his sage powers to Makar without reproducing or whatever). Also, I would question the assumption that Kokiri cannot reproduce. The Kokiri look like Human/Hylian children their whole lives, but that doesn't mean that they're eternally at the same stage growth-wise. The Kokiri are a separate species and could therefore be fully functioning adults past the growth stage of their lives while still looking like Hylian children (id est, the adult stage of their life cycle merely resembles the child stage of a Human/Hylian life cycle). Of course, Nintendo probably didn't think about any of this when they were making the games. -'Isdrak ' 05:37, December 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::: Isdrakthül said it perfectly. Some things you can prove by research as it can inherently be observed. In this case you can't observe the statements you are saying are fact and therefore it is theory. --Birdman5589 (talk) 05:53, December 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Ok, the whole "Kokiri aren't necessarily incapable of reproducing" thing makes sense as a reason this is a theory. Given the way they are described and what we know, the most probable conclusion (I think) is that they don't reproduce, and that's how I think they were intended to be when Nintendo made them up, but we can't prove that for sure. You're right, they're a bunch of magic fairy kids and it's never really explained where they come from (as far as I remember), so we can't necessarily assume they are equivalent to Human/Hylian children. I hadn't heard the things Aonuma said in that interview. That's interesting, though I have to wonder what that somewhat nonsensical sentence was supposed to mean in original Japanese (I assume it's a translation). So "Kokiri don't reproduce" is the part here that we can't be certain about. Though I think we can probably all agree that the whole Sage/Kokiri/Korok/descent confusion is most likely because Nintendo was just not paying attention (again).--Fierce Deku (talk) 07:13, December 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Leave it to Nintendo to create logical flaws capable of turning the universe inside-out...despite how crazy it is for children to reproduce, let alone to evolve into plants, this is clearly what Nintendo meant for us to assume, and when pressed, Aonuma eventually confirmed both the Kokiri-->Korok and Zora-->Rito theories, and a natural corollary is that both species can reproduce (obviously the Zoras can, but the issue here is the Kokiri) to facilitate evolution. I think if Nintendo meant for us to assume they were "spiritual descendants", they would have said "successors" instead. Jedimasterlink (talk) 07:31, December 4, 2010 (UTC)